ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL
Title no. 110-M60
Prediction of Concrete Pumping: Part II—Analytical
Prediction and Experimental Verification
by Seung Hee Kwon, Chan Kyu Park, Jae Hong Jeong, Seon Doo Jo, and Seung Hoon Lee
The primary objective of this study is to verify if the rheological
properties of the lubricating layer obtained from the newly
developed tribometer can give a good prediction of the real
flow rates of pumped concrete. An equation for the calculation
of the flow rates was derived considering the thickness and the
rheological properties of the layer. Full-scale pumping tests were
performed with pipelines of 350 and 548 m (383 and 599 yd) with
seven different mixtures. From the test results and the comparison
between the measured flow rates and the flow rates calculated
from the equation, it was verified that the flow rates of pumped
concrete can be accurately predicted before pumping according to
the rheological properties of the lubricating layer measured with
the tribometer. It was also found that the rheological properties of
the lubricating layer remained constant during pumping, whereas
the rheological properties of the concrete were found to vary.
Keywords: concrete pumping; concrete pumping test; lubricating layer;
prediction; pumping mechanism; rheological properties; tribometer.
INTRODUCTION
There have been many attempts to predict the flow in
concrete pumping.1-9 Most of the previous studies have
revealed that the lubricating layer is formed near the wall
of the pipe and plays a dominant role in facilitating concrete
pumping. However, four different hypotheses about the
laws for the behavior of the layer have been suggested by
researchers: 1) the first law is that the layer has constant
friction stress5; 2) the second is that the friction stress of the
layer is linearly proportional to the flow speed3,4,9; 3) the
third is that the friction stress is only linearly proportional
to the normal pressure applied to the layer1,2,4,6; and 4) the
fourth is that the friction stress is influenced by both the flow
speed and the normal pressure.7
There was a pioneering study10 to quantitatively predict
the flow of pumped concrete, in which the second law was
adopted and the properties of the lubricating layer were
experimentally determined with the tribometer developed
by the same authors. It first turned out that if the properties
of the layer are found before pumping, the flow rates in the
given conditions such as pump pressure, pipe diameter, and
length can be very accurately predicted.
Recently, a method to control pumping quality based
on an online sensing technique was established by Olga et
al.11; it was again validated that the second law is effective
in assessing concrete pumpability. The second law is also
adopted in this study.
In the previous studies on prediction of concrete
pumping,10,11 the thickness of the lubricating layer was not
considered, and friction stress was assumed to be acting
at the interface between the concrete and the steel surface.
However, the layer has finite thickness and the shear
flow is induced within the thickness. The thickness has
been reported to be in the range of 1 to 9 mm (0.0394 to
ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2013
TECHNICAL PAPER
0.354 in.). Aleekseev1 stated that the layer of 1 to 2 mm
(0.0394 to 0.0787 in.) thickness is formed at the wall. Browne
and Bamforth4 and Vassiliev12 noted that the thickness of the
layer formed during pumping is approximately 1 to 5 mm
(0.0394 to 0.197 in). Ngo et al.13 observed that the thickness
of the layer varies from 1 to 9 mm (0.0394 to 0.354 in.)
according to the concrete composition such as the cement
paste volume, the water-cement ratio (w/c), and the content
of high-range water-reducing admixture. In this study,
different from the previous studies, the thickness is presumed
to be 2 mm (0.08 in.)—a value based on recent experimental
observations and a numerical estimation of the thickness, as
mentioned in the preceding paper of this study.14
Although the second law turned out to be effective in
predicting the flow of pumped concrete,10,11 some questions
remain. The second law was experimentally validated under
the maximum pump pressure (or the maximum inlet pressure)
of 9 MPa (1.31 ksi),10 but it needs to be examined whether
the second law is still effective at the higher pump pressures
necessary for large-scale construction. For example,
when the world’s tallest building—the Burj Khalifa—was
constructed, concrete was pumped up to 576 m (630 yd), and
the maximum inlet pressure was 17.1 MPa (2.48 ksi).15 The
rheological properties of the pumped concrete were found
definitely to vary during pumping.14 The effect of the variation
of the rheological properties on the flow of pumped concrete,
however, has not been thoroughly studied.16-18 It was verified
from the previous study that the rheological properties of the
layer are constantly sustained during pumping up to the pipe
line length of 150 m (164 yd).10 Whether the rheological
properties remain constant or vary in a longer pipeline
covering the range of pipelines for large-scale construction
also needs to be examined.
A tribometer to measure the rheological properties of
the lubricating layer was newly developed in the preceding
paper.14 In this study, it will be verified from full-scale
pumping tests that the flow rates calculated by using the
rheological properties of the lubricating layer measured
with the tribometer accurately predict the real flow rates of
pumped concrete. This is the primary objective of this paper.
In addition, the aforementioned problems will be examined
through pumping tests.
Full-scale pumping tests with pipe lengths of 350 and 548 m
(383 and 599 yd) were performed with concrete samples
having proportioning strengths of 30 to 200 MPa (4.35 to
29.0 ksi). The rheological properties of the concrete samples
ACI Materials Journal, V. 110, No. 6, November-December 2013.
MS No. M-2012-133.R2 received November 6, 2012, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2013, American Concrete Institute. All rights
reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the
copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be
published in the September-October 2014 ACI Materials Journal if the discussion is
received by June 1, 2014.
657
Seung Hee Kwon is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil and Envi-
ronmental Engineering, Myongji University, Seoul, South Korea. He received his BS,
MS, and PhD from Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon,
South Korea, in 1998, 2000, and 2005, respectively. His research interests include
self-consolidating concrete, creep and shrinkage of concrete, fracture mechanics, and
fiber-reinforced concrete.
Chan Kyu Park is a Principal Researcher at the Institute of Construction Technology,
Samsung C&T Corporation, South Korea. He received his PhD from Korea Advanced
Institute of Science and Technology in 1997. His research interests include concrete
pumpability and hydration control of mass concrete.
Jae Hong Jeong is a Senior Researcher at the Institute of Construction Technology,
Samsung C&T Corporation, South Korea. He received his BS and MS from Seoul
National University, Seoul, South Korea, in 1995 and 1997, respectively. His research
interests include concrete pumpability, hydration control of mass concrete, and fiber-
reinforced concrete.
Seon Doo Jo is a Graduate Student in the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at Myongji University, where he received his BS and MS in 2009 and 2011,
respectively. His research interests include hydration heat, differential shrinkage, and
numerical simulation for the flow of fresh concrete.
Seung Hoon Lee is a Principal Researcher at the Institute of Construction Technology,
Samsung C&T Corporation, South Korea. He received his MS from Yonsei University,
Seoul, South Korea, in 1990. His research interests include high-performance concrete
and hydration control of mass concrete.
and the lubricating layers were measured with a concrete
rheometer and the tribometer, respectively, before and
after the pumping. The inlet pressure and the flow rates at
the outlet of the pipe were also measured in the tests. The
maximum inlet pressure was 16.5 MPa (2.39 ksi) in the tests.
The flow rates are calculated based on the rheological
properties measured with concrete rheometer and tribometer
and the measured inlet pressure; the calculated flow rates
are compared with the flow rates measured during the full-
scale pumping tests. From the comparison, the prediction
of the flow rates calculated with the rheological properties
obtained from the new tribometer is verified. In addition to
this, the effect of the variation of rheological properties on
the pumping and the effectiveness of the second law for the
higher pump pressure and the longer length of pipeline will
be investigated.
r  ∂P  r  Pinlet  r
t(r ) = = = DP (1)
2  ∂z  2  L pipe  2
where t is the shear stress inside the pipe; r is an arbitrary
position in the radial direction; z represents the coordinate axis
of the flow direction; and P is the net pressure applied to the pipe,
which is obtained by subtracting the pressure corresponding to
the self-weight of the concrete from the total applied pressure.
Pinlet is the net pressure at the inlet of the pipeline, and Lpipe is the
total length of the pipeline. The pressure gradient ∂P/∂z can be
simply calculated as Pinlet/Lpipe, which is expressed as DP for
simplicity. The shear stress induces a shear rate in both the
lubricating layer and in the concrete. The shear rate within
the slip-layer can be written as follows
t(r ) − t S ,0
γ = ( RL ≤ r ≤ RP ) (2)
mS
where γ is the shear rate insider the pipe; RP is the radius of
the pipe; RL is the distance from the center of the pipe to the
lubricating layer; and tS,0 and mS are the yield stress and the
viscosity of the lubricating layer, respectively. The difference
between RP and RL is the thickness of the lubricating layer.
The same idea—that the thickness of the lubricating layer
should be considered in calculating the flow rate—has been
adopted in the existing research.20 The shear rate of the inner
concrete is only induced when the applied shear stress is
larger than the yield stress of the concrete, and the size of the
shearing region should first be determined as follows
 L pipe 
RG = 2 t P ,0  ≤ RL (3)
 Pinlet 
where RG is the radius at which the shear rate starts, and
tP,0 is the yield stress of the inner concrete. The shear rate of
the inner concrete exists between RG and RL and is expressed
as follows

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE t(r ) − t P ,0

γ = (RG ≤ r ≤ RL) (4)
In succession to the preceding paper, in which a tribometer mP
was newly devised to measure the rheological properties of
the lubricating layer, full-scale pumping tests are performed and γ = 0 (0 ≤ r ≤ RG) (5)
with a longer pipeline and a higher pump pressure compared
to those values in previous studies. In this paper, the where mP is the viscosity of the concrete. The velocity is the
measured flows rates of pumped concrete are compared with integral of the shear rates from the wall to any position in the
the flow rates calculated by using the rheological properties radial direction and is expressed as follows
of the layer measured from the tribometer. The comparison
shows that the flow of pumped concrete can be quantitatively
predicted by considering the effect of the lubricating layer; 1  DP( RP 2 − r 2 ) 
US =  − t S ,0 ( RP − r ) (RL ≤ r ≤ RP) (6)
analyses of the measured and the calculated flow rates mS  4 
surely provide a better understanding of the mechanism for
concrete pumping.
1  DP( RP 2 − RL 2 ) 
U P1 =  − t S ,0 ( RP − RL ) 
PREDICTION METHOD FOR CONCRETE PUMPING mS  4 
Calculation of flow rate considering the (7)
lubricating layer 1  DP( RL 2 − r 2 ) 
When pump pressure is applied to the pipe, the shear stress +  − t P ,0 ( RL − r )  (RG ≤ r ≤ RL )
inside the pipe is expressed as follows19 mP  4 

658 ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2013

 Fig. 1—Velocity profile of pumped concrete inside pipe. (Note: Left: Cross section in
longitudinal direction; and right: transverse direction.)

1  DP( RP 2 − RL 2 ) 
UP2 =  − t S ,0 ( RP − RL ) 
mS  4 

1  DP( RL 2 − RG 2 )  ( 0 ≤ r ≤ RG ) (8)
+  − t P ,0 ( RL − RG ) 
mP  4 

where US, UP1, and UP2 are the velocities within the
lubricating layer in the shearing region of the concrete and in
the plug flow region, respectively. Figure 1 shows the typical
velocity profile in the pipe flow of the pumped concrete. The
flow rates are the integral of the velocity over the radius

RP RL RG
Q = ∫ 2 πrU S dr + ∫ 2 πrU P1dr + ∫ 2 πrU P 2 dr
RL RG 0

π (9)
= 3600 [3m P DP( RP 4 − RL 4 ) − 8t S ,0 m P ( RP 3 − RL 3 )
24m S m P Fig. 2—Pressure pulse and its averaged pressure level.
+ 3m S DP( RL 4 − RG 4 ) − 8t P ,0 m S ( RL 3 − RG 3 )]

where Q is the flow rate. The flow rate is a function of various full-scale pumping tests and a comparison between the
factors, which can be all determined before pumping. measured and the calculated flow rates.

Thickness of lubricating layer Fluctuation of pump pressure during pumping

In the existing research on prediction of concrete pumping,
the effect of the lubricating layer was considered as the
friction stress at the wall of the pipe, and its thickness was thus
regarded as zero.2-11 In reality, the lubricating layer has finite
thickness, as observed in other researchers’ experimental
work.1,4,12,13,21 However, it is still hard to determine the exact
thickness in an experimental way, and the thickness might
depend on such factors as pipe diameter, mixture proportion,
pressure level, and particle sizes of cement, sand, and gravel.
Jo et al.22 tried to estimate the thickness of the lubricating
layer in a numerical way by considering shear-induced particle
migration, which is one possible mechanism for the formation
of the lubricating layer. They performed many simulations for
various influencing factors and found that the thickness of the
layer was approximately 2 mm (0.08 in.) for mixtures having
a practical range of water-binder ratio (w/b). Recently, in the
full-scale pumping tests performed by Choi et al.,23 the velocity
profile insider the pipe was measured with a special gauge based
on ultrasonic waves, and it was also found that the velocities
abruptly increase within 2 mm (0.08 in.) of the wall and remain
constant away from the 2 mm (0.08 in.) region.
In this study, the thickness of the lubricating layer is
assumed to be 2 mm (0.08 in.) according to Jo et al.’s22 and
Choi et al.’s works.23 The assumed thickness, of course, may
not be the same as the real thickness. However, whether this
assumption is reasonable or not will be examined through
A two-stroke piston pump is generally preferred in
practice, and the pump pressure keeps fluctuating during
pumping because the pistons alternately repeat pushing
concrete to the pipe and pulling concrete from the hopper.
Figure 2 shows the real fluctuation of the pump pressure.
The alternate movement of the two strokes imposes a
dynamic effect or inertia force upon the larger particles of
the concrete and causes the formation of blockages in the
pipe. In addition, the velocity and the flow rate are known
to follow the cycle of the pump pressure with a slight delay.
In Eq. (7), the dynamic effect is not taken into account, and
the pressure is assumed to be constant and to be the same as
the averaged value over one cycle of pressure fluctuation.
A recent study carried out by Choi et al.23 also showed that
the flow rate under repeated pulse type pressure is almost
identical to the flow rate under the averaged pressure for one
cycle of the pulse.
Effect of bent pipe
It is known that bends in the pipeline lead to head loss
or pressure loss, which depends on the bending degree
and the radius of curvature of the bent pipe. However, the
loss caused by the bent pipe has not been quantitatively
estimated. In practice, the equivalent pipe length for the bent
pipe is considered, for example, if the radius of curvature
is 1 m (3.28 ft) and the bending degree is square, the head
loss for the bent pipe is assumed to be the same as the head

ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2013 659

Table 1—Mixture proportions
Proportioning Water, Cement, Fly ash, ZSF*, Sand, Gravel, AD1*, AD2*,
strength, kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3
Mixture MPa (psi) w/b, % s/a, % (lb/ft3) (lb/ft3) (lb/ft3) (lb/ft3) (lb/ft3) (lb/ft3) (lb/ft3) (lb/ft3)
1 30 (4.35E+3) 47.6 47.0 175 (10.9) 331 (20.7) 37.0 (2.30) — 816 (50.9) 945 (59.0) 3.31 (0.21) —
2 50 (7.25E+3) 32.0 45.0 172 (10.7) 484 (30.2) — 54.0 (3.40) 733 (48.3) 921 (57.5) — 4.84 (0.30)
3 25.0 47.0 160 (10.0) 544 (34.0) 96.0 (6.00) — 732 (45.7) 848 (52.9) — 9.60 (0.60)
80 (1.16E+4)
4 25.0 45.0 160 (10.0) 480 (30.0) 64.0 (4.00) 96.0 (6.00) 695 (43.4) 872 (54.4) — 7.04 (0.44)

Proportioning Water, Binder†, Sand, Gravel, AD2*, Organic fiber Steel fiber
strength, kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3 Volume fraction, Volume fraction,
Mixture MPa (psi) w/b, % s/a, % (lb/ft3) (lb/ft3) (lb/ft3) (lb/ft3) (lb/ft3) % %
5 12.5 35.0 150 (13.1) 1200 (105) 389 (33.9) 736 (64.1) 18.0 (1.58) — —
6 200 (2.90E+4) 12.5 35.0 150 (13.1) 1200 (105) 389 (33.9) 736 (64.1) 24.0 (2.10) 0.2 0.25
7 13.5 35.0 150 (13.1) 1111 (96.8) 417 (36.3) 790 (68.8) 14.4 (1.26) — —
*
ZSF is zirconia silica fume; AD1 is water-reducing agent; and AD2 is polycarboxylate high-range water-reducing admixture.
†
Binder is premixed cementitious materials.

loss for a 3 m (9.84 ft) long straight pipe. This estimation is
too rough to be quantitatively considered in the calculation
of the flow rate. The pumping tests performed by Kaplan et
al.10 show that the pressure loss in the pipe bend is identical
to the loss in the straight pipe.
In this study, in predicting the flow rate, the effect of bent
pipe on concrete pumping is ignored and will be examined
through a comparison between the calculated flow rates and
the flow rates measured in the full-scale pumping tests.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Materials
The materials used in the tests include ordinary concrete,
high-strength concrete, and fiber-reinforced concrete.
Table 1 shows the mixture proportions of concrete used in
the pumping tests. The proportioning strengths are 30, 50,
80, and 200 MPa (4.35, 7.25, 11.6, and 29.0 ksi). There
are two mixtures for the proportioning strength of 80 MPa
(11.6 ksi): Mixtures 3 and 4. Mixture 3 is designed to have
relatively higher flowability by adjusting the admixture, and
Mixture 4 has lower flowability for the same proportioning
strength. There are three mixtures for the strength of 200 MPa
(29.0 ksi): Mixtures 5, 6, and 7. In the case of Mixture 6,
the concrete was first manufactured with the same mixture
proportion as that of Mixture 5, and organic fiber and the
steel fiber were additionally dosed as much as the fractions
to a total volume of concrete of 0.2 and 0.25, respectively.
Mixture 7 was designed to have different rheological
properties from those of Mixture 5.
The maximum size of the gravel used in all the mixtures
was 20 mm (0.79 in.). The fineness modulus of the sand was
2.85.
Test method
Figure 3(a) shows the pipeline installed on the ground.
The concrete was pumped to the horizontal pipe lines of
two different lengths: 350 and 548 m (383 and 599 yd). The
detailed layouts of the two horizontal pipelines were given in
Fig. 3(b) and (c). Two different pressure levels were imposed
for the shorter pumping circuit, and three different pressure
levels were imposed for the longer pumping circuit. The
capacity of the pump was 20 MPa (2900 psi); the diameter
of the pipe was 127 mm (5 in.).
The pressure sensor was installed at the position 500 mm
(19.7 in.) away from the connection between the pump and
the pipe, as shown in Fig. 4. The flow rates were measured by
pouring the pumped concrete into a specially designed box
(Fig. 5), of which the dimensions and volume were already
known before pumping, and by recording the elapsed times
for particular volumes of the poured concrete.
The rheological properties, viscosity, and yield stress of
the lubricating layer and the concrete were measured with
the tribometer and the concrete rheometer before and after
pumping, respectively. Figure 6 shows the test setup for the
tribometer.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Measured rheological properties of lubricating
layer and concrete
Figure 7 shows one set of the test data determined with the
tribometer—that is, the relationship between the torque and
the angular velocity for the mixture (Mixture 3), which was
evaluated before pumping the concrete to the shorter circuit.
The relationship definitely exhibits linearity, which indicates
that the shear flow takes place only within the lubricating
layer induced by the rotary cylinder of the tribometer.
This linearity was also observed in all other mixtures. As
mentioned previously, the thickness of the lubricating
layer is regarded to be 2 mm (0.08 in.), and the measured
relationship was transformed into the yield stress and the
viscosity of the lubricating layer by using Eq. (11) and (12)
of the literature.14
The viscosity and the yield stress of the lubricating layer
and the concrete, measured before and after pumping, are
shown in Table 2. Although the mixture proportions were the
same, the mixtures for the shorter and the longer circuits came
from different batches and thus have different rheological
properties. The rheological properties of the lubricating
layer and the concrete were changed during pumping, and
the averaged values of the rheological properties before and
after pumping are also listed in Table 2. The subscripts i, f,
and a indicate the properties before and after pumping, and
the averaged values, respectively. There was no consistent
increasing or decreasing tendency in the rheological
properties before and after pumping.

660 ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2013

 Fig. 3—Pipeline used in full-scale pumping tests.

ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2013 661

Fig. 4—Installation of pressure gauge.
Fig. 5—Measurement of flow rates.
Fig. 6—Measurement of rheological properties with tribometer.
The measured inlet pressure—namely, the averaged
pressure over one cycle of the pressure fluctuation and
the measured flow rates for all the pumping tests—are
summarized in Table 3. The inlet pressure ranged from 6.3 to
16.5 MPa (0.913 to 2.39 ksi).
Figure 8 shows the relationship between the measured
flow rates and the pressure per unit pipe length for the cases
in which the same material was pumped up to 549 m (599 yd)
under the three different pressure levels. The relationships
exhibit a good linearity. The flow rates of pumped concrete
662
Fig. 7—Test results obtained from tribometer (Mixture 3).
Fig. 8—Relationship between measured flow rates and
pressure per unit pipe length.
highly depend on the viscosity of the lubricating layer
rather than other rheological properties of the layer and
the concrete. In Fig. 8, the mixture having lower viscosity
of the layer demonstrates the steeper slope of flow rates
over pressure as well; the viscosity of the lubricating layer
measured before pumping for Mixtures 2, 3, and 4 were
1.86, 6.14, and 2.04 Pa·s (2.70 × 10–4, 8.90 × 10–4, and
2.96 × 10–4 psi·s), respectively.
The flow rates were calculated from Eq. (9) with four
different combinations of the rheological properties: Case 1:
the rheological properties measured before pumping were
used for the lubricating layer and the concrete; Case 2: the
averaged values of the properties measured before and after
pumping were used for the lubricating layer and the concrete;
Case 3: the averaged values were used for the layer, and
the properties measured before pumping were used for the
concrete; and Case 4: the properties before pumping were
used for the layer and the averaged values were used for
the concrete. The flow rates calculated for the four cases of
rheological properties are also listed in Table 3.
ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2013
Table 2—Measured rheological properties before and after pumping, and averaged
Before pumping After pumping Average
Inner concrete Lubricating layer Inner concrete Lubricating layer Inner concrete Lubricating layer
Pipe
length, tP,0i, Pa mP,i, Pa∙s tS,0i, Pa mS,i, Pa∙s tP,0f, Pa mP,f, Pa∙s tS,0f, Pa mS,f, Pa∙s tP,0a , Pa mP,a , Pa∙s
* *
tS,a*, Pa mS,a*, Pa∙s
Mixture m (in.) (psi) (psi∙s) (psi) (psi∙s) (psi) (psi∙s) (psi) (psi∙s) (psi) (psi∙s) (psi) (psi∙s)
350 255 36.0 43.0 1.44 502 10.0 21.0 1.52 378 23.0 32.0 1.48
1
(1.38E+4) (3.70E–2) (5.22E–3) (6.24E–3) (2.09 E–3) (7.28E–2) (1.45E–3) (3.05E–3) (2.20E–4) (5.48E–2) (3.34E–3) (4.64E–3) (2.15E–4)
350 89.0 54.9 46.6 1.56 151 35.3 46.6 1.58 120 45.1 46.6 1.57
(1.38E+4) (1.29E–2) (7.96E–3) (6.76E–3) (2.26E–4) (2.19E–2) (5.12E–3) (6.76E–3) (2.29E–4) (1.74E–2) (6.54E–3) (6.76E–3) (2.28E–4)
2
548 60.6 55.4 35.2 1.86 70.8 38.8 42.4 1.30 65.7 47.1 38.8 1.58
(2.16E+4) (8.79E–3) (8.03E–3) (5.10E–3) (2.70E–4) (1.03E–2) (5.63E–3) (6.15E–3) (1.89E–4) (9.53E–3) (6.83E–3) (5.63E–3) (2.29E–4)
350 0.10 231 24.9 6.52 0.10 72.4 17.7 2.56 0.10 152 21.3 4.54
(1.38E+4) (1.45E–5) (3.35E–2) (3.61E–3) (9.45E–4) (1.45E–5) (1.05E–2) (2.57E–3) (3.71E–4) (1.45E–5) (2.20E–2) (3.09E–3) (6.58E–4)
3
548 0.10 219 6.30 6.14 0.10 68.3 9.40 1.84 0.10 144 7.80 3.99
(2.16E+4) (1.45E–5) (3.18E–2) (9.14E–4) (8.90E–4) (1.45E–5) (9.90E–3) (1.36E–3) (2.67E–4) (1.45E–5) (2.09E–2) (1.13E–3) (5.79E–4)
350 79.5 72.7 60.3 3.61 37.0 43.6 76.7 0.81 58.2 58.1 68.5 2.21
(1.38E+4) (1.15E–2) (1.05E–2) (8.74E–3) (5.23E–4) (5.37E–3) (6.32E–3) (1.11E–2) (1.17E–4) (8.44E–3) (8.42E–3) (9.93E–3) (3.20E–4)
4
548 70.7 72.1 56.9 2.04 29.4 47.9 36.1 1.38 50.0 60.0 46.5 1.71
(2.16E+4) (1.03E–2) (1.05E–2) (8.25E–3) (2.96E–4) (4.26E–3) (6.95E–3) (5.23E–3) (2.00E–4) (7.25E–3) (8.70E–3) (6.74E–3) (2.48E–4)
548 0.10 114.7 0.10 6.31 0.10 37.0 38.9 1.25 0.10 75.8 19.5 3.78
5
(2.16E+4) (1.45E–5) (1.66E–2) (1.45E–5) (9.15E–4) (1.45E–5) (5.37E–3) (5.64E–3) (1.81E–4) (1.45E–5) (1.10E–2) (2.83E–3) (5.48E–4)
548 0.10 157 0.10 6.37 0.10 81.7 10.4 3.13 0.10 119 5.30 4.75
6
(2.16E+4) (1.45E–5) (2.28E–2) (1.45E–5) (9.24E–4) (1.45E–5) (1.18E–2) (1.51E–3) (4.54E–4) (1.45E–5) (1.73E–2) (7.69E–4) (6.89E–4)
548 0.10 139 63.7 7.16 0.10 53.5 24.7 0.96 0.10 96.1 44.20 4.06
7
(2.16E+4) (1.45E–5) (2.01E–2) (9.24E–3) (1.04E–3) (1.45E–5) (7.76E–3) (3.58E–3) (1.39E–4) (1.45E–5) (1.39E–2) (6.41E–3) (5.89E–4)

*
t P ,0 i + t P ,0 f m P ,i + m P , f t S ,0 i + t S ,0 f m S ,i + m S , f
t P ,0 a = , m P,0 a = , t S ,0 a = , m S ,0 a =
2 2 2 2

Prediction of flow rates before pumping the measured flow rates (refer to Fig. 9(a)) indicate that the
To predict the flow rates before pumping, only the initial properties and thickness of the lubricating layer are
rheological properties measured before pumping should almost constantly sustained during pumping in the pipeline
be used in calculating the flow rates. This circumstance length of 548 m (599 yd) and under the pressure level of
corresponds to Case 1. 16.5 MPa (2.38 ksi).
A comparison between the measured flow rates and the
calculated flow rates for Case 1 was made and is shown in Effect of variation in rheological properties during
Fig. 9(a). The accuracy of the prediction was estimated with pumping
the following equation Although a good prediction can be made with the
properties measured before pumping, it can be observed
from the data in Table 2 that the properties actually vary
accuracy (%) =
during pumping. If the varying properties are considered in
the calculation of the flow rates, it would be expected that
(10)
 1 n measured flow rate – predicted flow rate  the calculated flow rates would more accurately simulate
 1 − n i∑ measured flow rate  × 100 the real flow rates. The flow rates were calculated with the
 =1 
averaged values of the properties measured before and after
pumping for the lubricating layer and the concrete (Case 2); a
where n is the number of pumping tests. The calculated comparison between the calculated flow rates for Case 2 and
accuracy for the comparison made in Fig. 9(a) was 89.4%. for the measured flow rates is shown in Fig. 9(b). Contrary
This indicates that the flow rates can be accurately predicted to expectations, the accuracy estimated from Eq. (10) was
with the rheological properties of the lubricating layer and 76.6% and becomes even worse when compared to the data
the concrete measured before pumping for different types in Fig. 9(a). This may indicate that the rheological properties
of concrete, including ordinary concrete, high-strength of the lubricating layer and the concrete do not vary
concrete, and fiber-reinforced concrete. In addition, it can together during pumping; that is, either the properties of the
be seen that the effect of the bent pipe on the flow rates is lubricating layer or the properties of the concrete change.
minor, which results are similar to those of the previous test The flow rates were calculated again for Case 3, in which
results of Kaplan et al.10; thus, the assumptions about the the averaged values were used for the layer, and the properties
thickness of the lubricating layer and the use of the averaged measured before pumping were used for the concrete.
pressure over the cycle of the pressure pulse are reasonable. Figure 9(c) shows a comparison between the measured flow
The linearity between the flow rate and the pressure (refer to rates and the calculated flow rates for Case 3. The accuracy for
Fig. 8) and the good agreement between the calculated and Case 3 was 82.1%, which is still lower than that for Case 1.

ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2013 663

 Fig. 9—Comparison between measured and calculated flow rates.
This raises the possibility that the rheological properties of
the lubricating layer remain constant during pumping while
only the properties of the concrete change.
The flow rates were finally calculated for Case 4, in which
the properties before pumping were used for the lubricating
layer and the averaged values were used for the concrete. A
comparison between the measured and the calculated values
for Case 4 is made in Fig. 9(d). The accuracy for Case 4 was
93.5%, which is much higher than that for Case 1. The
errors between the measured and the calculated values were
plotted for Case 1 and Case 4 as shown in Fig. 10. It can
be seen that the errors for most of the cases are reduced in
Case 4. It is confirmed from a comparison to Fig. 9(d) that
the rheological properties of the lubricating layer remain
constant during pumping while the properties of the concrete
are varying during pumping. The elapsed time that concrete
was transported from the inlet to the outlet of the pipe ranged
from 5 to 40 minutes. The lubricating layer experiences
much more shearing compared to the inner concrete, that
is, the shear rate of the inner concrete is much smaller than
that of the lubricating layer because the concrete has higher
viscosity and yield stress, and the lower shear stress is
imposed to the concrete. The shearing in the lubricating layer
seemed to prevent the thixotropic change or the flocculation
process in cement paste. This is a probable reason why the
rheological properties of the layer were constantly sustained
during pumping, which has a very important meaning in real
construction.
664
If concrete needs to be pumped up to several hundred
meters in a vertical direction, the engineer may be concerned
about how many pumps should be used. If two pumps are
installed, one on the ground and the other in the middle of
the targeted pumping height, the flow rates from the first
pump to the second pump could be predicted according
to the rheological properties measured before pumping;
however, the flow rates from the second pump to the targeted
height could not be predicted with the same rheological
properties because these properties are known to vary during
pumping. The pumpability from the second pump to the
targeted height could be worse or better.
It may be necessary to additionally explain why the
rheological properties of the lubricating layer measured after
pumping are different from the properties before pumping,
as shown in Table 3, even though the properties do not
really change during pumping. The rheological properties
of the lubricating layer cannot be measured directly from
the lubricating layer but are measured with concrete by
using the tribometer. When the rheological properties of the
lubricating layer are measured with the pumped concrete
after pumping, the pumped concrete is already a mixture
of the lubricating layer and the inner concrete, which
components are separated during pumping. Therefore,
although the properties of the layer remain constant during
pumping, the properties of the layer measured after pumping
can be different from the properties before pumping, as
shown in Table 2.
ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2013
Table 3—Measured and calculated flow rates
Predicted flow rate
Inlet pressure Measured Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
Pipe length, per unit length, flow rate,
Mixture m (in.) kPa/m (psi/in.) m3/h (ft3/h) 3 3
m /h (ft /h) 3 3
m /h (ft /h) 3 3
m /h (ft /h) m /h (ft3/h)
3

27.6 (1.02E–1) 61.5 (2.17E+3) 56.5 (2.00E+3) 56.6 (2.00E+3) 55.9 (1.97E+3) 57.2 (2.02E+3)
1 350 (1.38E+4)
18.2 (6.71E–2) 32.5 (1.15E+3) 34.5 (1.22E+3) 32.9 (1.16E+3) 34.3 (1.21E+3) 33.0 (1.17E+3)
31.7 (1.17E–1) 61.3 (2.16E+3) 60.6 (2.14E+3) 61.7 (2.18E+3) 60.2 (2.13E+3) 62.2 (2.20E+3)
350 (1.38E+4)
20.5 (7.55E–2) 34.8 (1.23E+3) 37.8 (1.33E+3) 38.2 (1.35E+3) 37.5 (1.32E+3) 38.5 (1.36E+3)
2 25.2 (9.30E–2) 45.2 (1.60E+3) 41.7 (1.47E+3) 49.0 (1.73E+3) 47.8 (1.69E+3) 43.0 (1.52E+3)
548 (2.16E+4) 19.8 (7.28E–2) 33.5 (1.18E+3) 32.1 (1.13E+3) 37.7 (1.33E+3) 36.7 (1.30E+3) 33.1 (1.17E+3)
15.1 (5.55E–2) 21.9 (7.73E+2) 23.9 (8.44E+2) 27.9 (9.85E+2) 27.3 (9.64E+2) 24.5 (8.65E+2)
43.7 (1.61E–1) 22.7 (8.02E+2) 20.9 (7.38E+2) 30.4 (1.07E+3) 28.5 (1.01E+3) 22.8 (8.05E+2)
350 (1.38E+4)
25.1 (9.23E–2) 13.3 (4.70E+2) 11.8 (4.17E+2) 17.2 (6.07E+2) 16.2 (5.72E+2) 12.9 (4.56E+2)
3 29.3 (1.08E–1) 17.3 (6.11E+2) 15.0 (5.30E+2) 23.0 (8.12E+2) 21.7 (7.66E+2) 16.3 (5.76E+2)
548 (2.16E+4) 21.1 (7.78E–2) 12.4 (4.38E+2) 10.8 (3.81E+2) 16.6 (5.86E+2) 15.6 (5.51E+2) 11.8 (4.17E+2)
14.9 (5.49E–2) 8.90 (3.14E+2) 7.60 (2.68E+2) 11.6 (4.10E+2) 11.0 (3.88E+2) 8.30 (2.93E+2)
42.2 (1.56E–1) 53.4 (1.89E+3) 39.5 (1.39E+3) 60.5 (2.14E+3) 57.7 (2.04E+3) 42.3 (1.49E+3)
350 (1.38E+4)
26.8 (9.85E–2) 29.1 (1.03E+3) 24.1 (8.51E+2) 37.0 (1.31E+3) 35.2 (1.24E+3) 26.0 (9.18E+2)
4 25.7 (9.49E–2) 40.6 (1.43E+3) 36.8 (1.30E+3) 44.7 (1.58E+3) 43.2 (1.53E+3) 38.3 (1.35E+3)
548 (2.16E+4) 18.2 (6.72E–2) 30.0 (1.06E+3) 25.1 (8.86E+2) 30.8 (1.09E+3) 29.7 (1.05E+3) 26.2 (9.25E+2)
13.6 (5.01E–2) 21.2 (7.49E+2) 17.9 (6.32E+2) 22.2 (7.84E+2) 21.4 (7.56E+2) 18.8 (6.64E+2)
29.4 (1.08E–1) 19.7 (6.96E+2) 17.1 (6.04E+2) 27.3 (9.64E+2) 24.9 (8.79E+2) 19.6 (6.92E+2)
5 548 (2.16E+4)
20.9 (7.69E–2) 14.0 (4.94E+2) 12.2 (4.31E+2) 19.3 (6.82E+2) 17.6 (6.22E+2) 13.9 (4.91E+2)
27.9 (1.03E–1) 14.7 (5.19E+2) 14.9 (5.26E+2) 19.8 (6.99E+2) 18.7 (6.60E+2) 15.9 (5.62E+2)
6 548 (2.16E+4)
21.5 (7.90E–2) 11.0 (3.88E+2) 11.4 (4.03E+2) 15.2 (5.37E+2) 14.4 (5.09E+2) 12.3 (4.34E+2)
31.0 (1.14E–1) 17.3 (6.11E+2) 14.9 (5.26E+2) 25.3 (8.93E+2) 23.4 (8.26E+2) 16.7 (5.90E+2)
7 548 (2.16E+4)
24.3 (8.97E–2) 12.6 (4.45E+2) 11.5 (4.06E+2) 19.7 (6.96E+2) 18.2 (6.43E+2) 13.0 (4.59E+2)

Fig. 10—Error between measured and calculated flow rates.

Although some researchers have suggested mechanisms
for the change of the rheological properties of the inner
concrete,16-18 it is still impossible to predict the variation,
and this is another challenging subject for future study.
Discussion on applicability of prediction method
to vertical pumping
When the world’s highest building—Burj Khalifa in
Dubai—was being built in 2007, concrete was pumped
through the 656 m (717 yd) long pipeline that consisted
of 80 m (87.5 yd) long pipe in the horizontal direction
and 576 m (630 yd) long pipe in the vertical direction. This
is a world-record height in vertical pumping. The diameter
of the pipe was 152 mm (6 in.). At the construction site, the
viscosity and the yield stress of concrete were measured
before pumping. The rheological properties of the lubricating
layer could not be measured at that time. The inlet pressure,
the density of the concrete, and the flow rate were measured
as well. The measured values are listed in Table 4. The
net pressure can be calculated by subtracting the pressure

ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2013 665

 Table 4—Prediction on vertical pumping performed on construction site of
real high-rise building (Burj Khalifa at Dubai in 2007)
Radius mm (in.) 76.2 (6)
Pipe Horizontal m (ft) 83 (272)
Pipeline
Vertical m (ft) 576 (1889)
Design strength MPa (psi) 80 (11,600)
Concrete kg/m 3
Density 2,400 (150)
(lb/ft3)
Total pressure MPa (psi) 17.1 (2480)
Pressure
Net pressure MPa (psi) 3.55 (515)

Concrete (measured before Viscosity (mP,i) Pa∙s (psi∙s) 44.1 (6.40E–3)

pumping) Yield stress (tP,0i) Pa (psi) 0.10 (1.45E–5)
Rheological
Viscosity (mS,i)
properties Pa∙s (psi∙s) 1.68 (2.44E–4)
*
mS,i = 0.038 × mP,i
Lubricating layer (assumed)
Yield stress (tS,0i)
Pa (psi) 0.07 (1.01E–5)
tS,0i = 0.69 × tP,0i
Measured m3/h (ft3/h) 21.3 (752)
Flow rate 20.6 (727)
Calculated m3/h (ft3/h)
(Accuracy = 96.7%)
*
Viscosity and yield stress of lubricating layer were assumed based on rheological properties measured before pumping in Table 2.

equivalent to the self-weight from the total pressure. An
attempt to predict the flow rate for the vertical pumping was
made. The thickness of the lubricating layer was assumed to
be 2 mm (0.08 in), which is the same thickness considered
in calculating the flow rates for the horizontal pumping in
this study. Regarding the rheological properties measured
before pumping, shown in Table 2, the viscosity of the layer
was, on average, 3.8% of the viscosity of the concrete, and
the yield stress of the layer was approximately 69% of the
yield stress of the concrete excluding highly deviated data
for Mixtures 3 and 7. In predicting the vertical pumping, the
viscosity and the yield stress of the layer were estimated as
3.8% and 69% of the viscosity and the yield stress of the
concrete, respectively. As shown in Table 4, the calculated
flow rate was 96.7% of the measured flow rate. The
prediction under the assumption on the lubricating layer was
very close to the real vertical pumping. This result shows a
possibility to apply the suggested prediction method to the
vertical pumping. However, it still needs to experimentally
verify the prediction method for the vertical pumping.
CONCLUSIONS
The equation to calculate the flow rates in a given pumping
condition was first derived by considering the thickness
and the rheological properties of the lubricating layer.
Full-scale pumping tests were performed with pipelines
of 350 and 548 m (383 and 599 yd) and with seven different
mixtures. In the tests, the rheological properties of the
lubricating layer and the concrete, the inlet pressure, and the
flow rates were measured before and after pumping. From
the tests and the comparison between the measured flow
rates and the calculated flow rates, the following conclusions
were obtained.
1. The flow rates of pumped concrete can be predicted
with an accuracy of 89.4% before pumping by considering
the rheological properties of the lubricating layer, measured
with the newly developed tribometer.
2. The rheological properties of the lubricating layer
remain constant during pumping, whereas the rheological
properties of the concrete were found to vary.
3. It was confirmed that the thickness and the rheological
properties of the lubricating layer are constantly sustained
during pumping up to a pipeline length of 548 m (599 yd)
and up to the pressure level of 16.5 MPa (2.39 ksi).
4. The effect of bent pipe on the flow of pumped concrete
is small enough to be ignored for the concrete mixtures
tested in this study.
5. The flow rate under repeated pulse type pressure can
be considered equivalent to the flow rate under the averaged
pressure for one cycle pulse.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was a part of the research project, “Development of Analysis
Program to Predict the High-Rise Concrete Pumping,” which had been
financially supported by the Samsung C&T Corporation from 2009 to 2010.
The first author is very grateful for the support. The research activities of
the first and fourth authors were supported by the research grant of the
Engineering College at Myongji Unversity during 2012 to 2013. The first
and fourth authors are very grateful for the support.
NOTATION
Lpipe = total length of pipeline
n = number of pumping tests
P = pressure applied to pipe
Pinlet = pressure at inlet of pipeline
Q = flow rate
RG = distance from center of pipe and position that shear flow starts
to develop
RL = distance from center of pipe to lubricating layer
RP = radius of the pipe
r = arbitrary position in radial direction
UP1 = velocity profile within shearing region
UP2 = velocity in plug flow region
US = velocity profile within lubricating layer
z = coordinate axis of flow direction
DP = pressure gradient
γ = shear rate inside pipe
mP = viscosity of inner concrete
mS = viscosity of lubricating layer
t = shear stress inside pipe
tP,0 = yield stress of inner concrete
tS,0 = yield stress of lubricating layer

666 ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2013

 REFERENCES
1. Alekseev, S. N., “On the Calculation of Resistance in Pipe of Concrete
Pumps,” Mekhanizatia Storitel’stva, V. 9, No. 1, 1952, pp. 8-13. (translated
as Library Communication No. 450, Building Research Station, 1953)
2. Ede, A. N., “The Resistance of Concrete Pumped through Pipelines,”
Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 9, No. 27, 1957, pp. 129-140.
3. Morinaga, S., “Pumpability of Concrete and Pumping Pressure in
Pipelines,” Fresh Concrete: Important Properties and Their Measurement,
Proceedings of a RILEM Seminar, Leeds, V. 7, 1973, pp. 1-39.
4. Browne, R. D., and Bamforth, P. B., “Tests to Establish Concrete
Pumpability,” ACI Journal, V. 74, No. 5, May 1977, pp. 193-203.
5. Sakuta, M.; Kasanu, I.; Yamane, S.; and Sakamoto, A., Pumpability of
Fresh Concrete, Takenaka Technical Research Laboratory, Tokyo, Japan,
1989, pp. 125-133.
6. Chailmo, T.; Touloupov, N.; and Markovskiy, M., Peculiarities of
Concrete Pumping, Minsk, 1989, 171 pp. (in Russian)
7. Tanigawa, Y.; Mori, H.; and Noda, Y., Theoretical Study on Pumping of
Fresh Concrete, Concrete Institute of Japan, V. 13, 1991.
8. Jacobsen, S.; Haugan, L.; Hammer, T. A.; and Kalogiannidis, E., “Flow
Conditions of Fresh Mortar and Concrete in Different Pipes,” Cement and
Concrete Research, V. 39, No. 11, 2009, pp. 997-1006.
9. Weber, R., “The Transport of Concrete by Pipeline,” Translation
No. 129, C. van Amerongen, Cement and Concrete Association, 1968.
10. Kaplan, D.; de Larard, F.; and Sedran, T., “Design of Concrete
Pumping Circuit,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 102, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2005,
pp. 110-117.
11. Rio, O.; Rodriguez, A.; Nabulsi, S.; and Alvarez, M., “Pumping
Quality Control Method Based on Online Concrete Pumping Assessment,”
ACI Materials Journal, V. 108, No. 4, July-Aug. 2011, pp. 423-431.
12. Vassiliev, V., Flow Regime in a Concrete Pipe, seventh edition, 1953,
pp. 42-44. (in Russian)
13. Ngo, T. T.; Kadri, E. H.; Bennacer, R.; and Cussigh, F., “Use of
Tribometer to Estimate Interface Friction and Concrete Boundary Layer
Composition During the Fluid Concrete Pumping,” Construction &
Building Materials, V. 23, No. 7, 2010, pp. 1253-1261.
ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2013
14. Kwon, S. H.; Jo, S. D.; Park, C. K.; Jeong, J. H.; and Lee, S. H.,
“Prediction of Concrete Pumping: Part I—Development of a New
Tribometer to Measure Rheological Properties of Lubricating Layer,” ACI
Materials Journal, V. 110, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2013.
15. Sohn, Y. S.; Lee, J. H.; and Lee, S. H., “Application of Ultra-
High-Strength Concrete for High-Rise Building,” Proceedings of the
7th International Symposium on Advancement of Cement and Concrete
Industries, Seoul, South Korea, 2010, pp. 105-125.
16. Ouchi, M., and Sakue, J., “Self-Compactability of Fresh Concrete
in Terms of Dispersion and Coagulation of Particles of Cement Subject to
Pumping,” Proceedings of SCC 2008, Chicago, IL, 2008. (CD-ROM)
17. Moon, H. J.; Cha, H. I.; Lee, J. H.; Shin, J. K.; Choi, J. M.; and Lee,
E. H., “Pumpability Test Results of High-Strength Concrete for Super High-
Rise Building Direct Pumping,” Proceedings of KCI Fall Conference 2007,
Korea, 2007, pp. 1013-1016. (in Korean)
18. Ko, J. H.; Moon, H. J.; Seok, W. K.; Park, S. J.; and Kim, H. J.,
“A Study on the 1:1 Full Scale Core Wall Mock-Up Test of High-Strength
Concrete Performed by Testing Pumpability,” Journal of the Architectural
Institute of Korea, Structural Division, V. 24, No. 8, 2008, pp. 203-210. (in
Korean)
19. Tattersall, G. H., and Banfill, P. F., The Rheology of Fresh Concrete,
Pitman Advanced Publishing Program, London, UK, 1983, 356 pp.
20. Jacobsen, S.; Mork, J. H.; Lee, S. F.; and Haugan, L., “Pumping of
Concrete and Mortar—State of the Art,” COIN Project Report 5, 2008,
45 pp.
21. Watanabe, K.; Teranishi, K.; Mori, H.; and Tanigawa, Y., “Study on
Adhesion and Slipping Characteristics of Fresh Concrete,” Transactions of
the Japan Concrete Institute, V. 16, 1994, pp. 33-40.
22. Jo, S. D.; Park, C. K.; Jeong, J. H.; Lee, S. H.; and Kwon, S. H.,
“A Computational Approach to Estimating a Lubricating Layer in Concrete
Pumping,” Computers, Materials & Continua, V. 27, No. 3, 2011,
pp. 189-210.
23. Choi, M. S.; Kim, Y. J.; Jeon, S. J.; and Kim, Y. J., “Effect of Unsteady
Pulse Type Pumping Pressure on the Concrete Flow,” Proceedings of 9th
International Symposium on High Performance Concrete, Rotorua, New
Zealand, Aug. 9-11, 2011. (CD-ROM)
667
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.